Comments on: Adventures in Laïcité

By: jennifer

jennifer — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:14:51 +0000

I detest this ridiculous and ill-conceived law. I live in France, but am an American. It was most clearly targeted at Muslims, and everyone knows this. Pretending it is anything else is just sticking your head in the sand. Anyone who thinks you can get rid of a religion by banning its symbols should realize this kind of targeting of a religion will only cause more extremists to take hold, rather than to make things better. Schools are perfectly capable of being secular while teaching about all different types of beliefs and religions (including atheism). Further, as a vegetarian, I find this notion of forcing people to eat meat (or any food for that matter – what of allergic children?) really disgusting. I don’t care how small the town is or any other ridiculous excuses (meat is the most expensive thing to buy in France so a vegetarian option would be cheaper to provide!). There is simply no reason to force a child to eat something they don’t want to eat during a meal – all child psychologists will tell you this – it doesn’t teach anyone anything. Many modern nutritionists do not consider meat to be a necessary part of a balanced diet, so that excuse can just go out the window as well. It seems to me like simple abuse of children, in this case targeting Muslim children because they are ‘different’. The schools most certainly can make some changes for them, such as to provide balanced vegetarian meals that meet Halal requirements. And as far as knowing what the needs are – our schools here require kids to sign up for canteen meals by the week prior so that the correct number of meals can be planned – surely a selection of meat/no meat meal can be added to that listing? I find France very far behind in this regard, and it always amazes me because 99% of the time I agree with French political stances, but this one just blows me away – I truly don’t understand how anyone in their right mind can think this law is a postive improvement on the situation.

By: INTERVENTOR

INTERVENTOR — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:23:49 +0000

A pyramid of cat skulls was once found in the Paris sewers — above a cafe noted for its rabbit dishes. Hope the school’s lapin doesn’t go meow. Worse croissants I ever had were in Paris — best in Saigon.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:10:27 +0000

If everyone starts bringing stuff, just sack the cooks

By: Thibault

Thibault — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:04:07 +0000

Ken,
I totally agree with you. This is actually what my school canteen did 20 years ago, in my little French village.
On the other hand, if everybody starts bringing stuff, it may be hard for the cooks to accomodate everyone.
Last, I’ve seen that McDonald’s had introduced Halal McNuggets in Detroit. Yep, McDonald’s setting the right example for France, funny.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:20:55 +0000

Thibault, surely the authorities can just give the families to opt out of having school meals and having to provide food for their kids independently? To say “if you don’t want what we provide, fine – just sort it out yourself and don’t expect us to pander to your whims”

By: Thibault

Thibault — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:29:31 +0000

Being French but living in the US, I looked at the laicite debate with some skepticism: doesn?t this law actually imply that egalite is stronger than liberte?
First, on the Christmas tree story. This is tit for tat, I agree. By the way, why should public schools be off on Sunday? This is blatantly a Christian tradition, isn?t?
Anyhow, this canteen story made me so some research to understand the case better. Apparently, a minority (20 families) of Muslim families were complaining that the kids were eating non Halal meat (i.e. meat not prepared according to the Prophet?s prescriptions). The families ask that the kids either do not eat any meat at all or that the meat becomes Halal.
This being France, it is considered very important that the kids are ?educated? to the ?good taste?, meaning that menus are supposed to be planned by nutritionists and be balanced. So not eating things is considered badly.
True, kids should have an alternative. Yet, I wonder how the canteen of a small town is supposed to do to address those needs. Pork has already been banned from a lot of French canteens. Should everything become Halal, so that purchasing costs remain low? How does a small canteen address the logistical problems of matching everybody?s needs?

By: Linca

Linca — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:34:38 +0000

Jonathan, I don’t see why ,in a secular state that recognizes no religion, religious requirements should be any more respected than any other wish of a child or his family. There is no more reason to recognize the right not to come to school on saturdays because it is Sabbath than there is to allow skipping classes every Tuesday morning because that’s when the local team has its soccer practice.

The link beetween No?l and the birth of Christ is quite loose ; the “christ” in christmas observation falls awfully flat in the French “no?l”, and the christmas tree is . It is celebrated by about every French La?cards and some muslim families. In the thirties the Catholic church routinely burnt Santa Claus effigies ; now christmas is more about P?re no?l than Christ.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:31:35 +0000

I was referring more to the headscarf laws than demanding Muslim children eat non-halal food. Although that in itself raises interesting questions about Sikh children wearing turbans…

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 03:23:24 +0000

I remember thinking that the part about diet should be respected as long as it was physically possible, and in fact it opens interesting possibilities for those of us who have no proper sacred food.

As for the tree, I think it is equivalent of representation of religious art. Should we forbid in school knowledge of art and architecture that have a religious sense? I think not.

DSW

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:35:45 +0000

It doesn’t matter – the school is supposed to be a secular institution. That is the justification for the law (which, incidentally, I have some sympathy with).

The fact that a school is a secular institution may justify exclusion of symbols that affirmatively represent a religion. It doesn’t justify requiring students to affirmatively violate their religion, e.g., by eating foods that are forbidden under religious dietary laws.